Stablecoin Regulations: MiCA vs. US GENIUS Act - A Side‑by‑Side Comparison

Key Takeaways

• MiCA treats stablecoins as either e‑money tokens (EMTs) or asset‑referenced tokens (ARTs) and bans algorithmic designs.
• The US federal framework (often called the GENIUS Act) focuses on 80%+ Treasury backing and allows algorithmic models that meet reserve rules.
• EU issuers face strict authorization and EU‑based legal entity requirements; US issuers need a federal charter and Treasury‑repo access.
• Compliance costs are higher in the EU (average €2.7M per issuer) but deliver near‑perfect redemption reliability; the US approach is cheaper but concentrates risk in Treasury markets.
• Both regimes are shaping market share: USDC dominates the EU compliant space, while US‑issued stablecoins are expanding rapidly under the Treasury‑backed model.

When you hear the term MiCA is the EU’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation, you instantly picture a uniform rulebook covering everything from wallet providers to token issuers. Across the Atlantic, U.S. policymakers are pushing a different playbook - a federal stablecoin framework that many refer to as the GENIUS Act. Both aim to protect consumers and preserve financial stability, yet they take opposite routes. This guide walks you through the two regimes, highlights the biggest contrasts, and shows how the rules affect issuers, investors, and everyday users.

What MiCA Actually Says About Stablecoins

MiCA splits stablecoins into two clear buckets:

• E‑money tokens (EMTs) - tied to a single official currency (euro, pound, etc.). Issuers must be a credit institution or an electronic‑money institution, hold at least €350,000 in capital, and publish a detailed white paper.
• Asset‑referenced tokens (ARTs) - backed by a basket of assets, which can include other stablecoins like USDT. Issuers must be EU‑registered legal entities, keep a 1:1 liquid reserve, and meet tighter governance standards.

Algorithmic stablecoins are outright banned - the regulation states they lack “explicit reserves tied to any traditional type of asset.”¹ Redemption must be possible at par value any time, and the European Banking Authority (EBA) can label a token “significant” if it exceeds thresholds such as 1million daily transactions, triggering enhanced supervision.

The U.S. Federal Framework (GENIUS Act) Snapshot

The U.S. approach grew out of Executive Order 14067 (2022) and a series of bills (the Stablecoin Transparency Act, Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act). The emerging framework, often called the GENIUS Act, centers on three pillars:

1. Issuers obtain a federal charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
2. Reserve composition: at least 80% of assets must be U.S. Treasury securities or central‑bank reserves.
3. Algorithmic designs are permitted as long as they satisfy the Treasury‑backing rule and meet real‑time auditability requirements.

Unlike MiCA, the U.S. model does not set a hard‑stop “significant token” threshold, leaving systemic‑risk monitoring to the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Core Differences at a Glance

Market Impact - Numbers Tell the Story

MiCA’s rollout trimmed the EU stablecoin market from $58.3bn to $36.7bn (a 37% drop) within a year, as non‑compliant tokens vanished. Yet compliance brought redemption reliability up to 99.98% during the March‑2023 banking stress test.² USDC captured 82.3% of the remaining EU market, and EURC handled €4.2bn of cross‑border payments in Q12025 with zero redemption failures.

In the United States, the Treasury‑backed model is already reshaping portfolios. The six largest US‑issued stablecoins now hold $187.4bn in Treasury securities (up from $28.6bn in early2023). This surge in demand has helped lower Treasury yields by roughly 5bps, according to a March2025 Treasury white paper.

However, concentrating reserves in a single asset class raises interest‑rate shock risks. The IMF warned in April2025 that a rapid rate hike could force stablecoin issuers to liquidate Treasuries, amplifying market stress.

Compliance Challenges for Issuers

EU issuers spent months building EU subsidiaries just to meet the ART requirement. Paxos Europe, for example, invested €4.3M in Dublin in September2024. The average preparation time hit 10‑12months, and capital requirements forced many smaller players out of the market.

U.S. firms face a different hurdle: wiring into the Federal Reserve’s repo system to lock in Treasury collateral. A Diem Association survey finds the infrastructure upgrade averages $1.9M, but the payoff is a direct link to the nation’s reserve currency - a powerful advantage for global payment corridors.

Both sides also wrestle with liquidity reporting. MiCA obliges issuers to disclose a high‑quality liquid asset mix (≥60% cash, remainder AA‑‑rated short‑term debt). The U.S. draft requires real‑time audits of Treasury holdings, pushing firms toward blockchain‑enabled custody solutions.

Future Outlook - Convergence or Divergence?

Regulators worldwide are watching each other closely. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) consulted on a global standard in June2025 that blends MiCA’s reserve‑diversity with the U.S. Treasury‑focus. Sixty‑seven% of respondents favored “harmonized reserve requirements” but split on asset composition.

Within the EU, the “significant token” designation will activate later‑2025, raising reserve backing to 120% for the biggest tokens. This could squeeze smaller players even more, prompting some to relocate to US‑friendly jurisdictions.

In the U.S., the Senate Banking Committee’s recent approval of a revised bill (June182025) adds a federal charter requirement, essentially cementing the OCC’s lead role. If enacted, the framework could unlock a 62% market expansion to $315bn by 2027, according to JPMorgan Chase Global Research.

Ultimately, issuers may need a dual‑compliance strategy - maintaining EU subsidiaries for EMT/ART access while securing an OCC charter for broader US market reach. The cost of juggling two rulebooks will be high, but the upside - global liquidity and regulatory legitimacy - could outweigh the expense.

Practical Checklist for Stablecoin Issuers

• Identify your primary market: EU, US, or both.
• For EU entry, decide between EMT (single‑currency) or ART (basket) and set up an EU‑registered legal entity.
• Secure the required capital - €350k for EMTs, €2.7M average compliance budget for ARTs.
• In the US, apply for an OCC charter and build Treasury‑repo connections.
• Maintain reserve transparency: 100% liquid assets (MiCA) vs. ≥80% Treasury (GENIUS).
• Implement real‑time audit trails - consider blockchain‑based custody platforms.
• Prepare for “significant token” thresholds if EU volume exceeds 1M daily transactions.